Latest leak from CPCHardware talks about base clocks: 3.7Ghz for i7 8700K and 2.8Ghz for i5 8400. You could use that info together with KBL base clocks to get an idea on all core turbos.Please stop torturing fine ppl of the forums Leak those turbo clocks already
Run HWInfo and check whether your sata speed is at gen2 or gen3.I'm seeing similar results from my 1tb Samsung 960 Pro. I had better benchmarks on my x99. I don't notice any difference in actual usage, but the only thing on the drive is Windows 10, iTunes, Office, & Steam, with all my games stored on an 8tb HGST drive and the machine only used for gaming. In other words, I don't really utilize the m2 anywhere near it's potential.
According to Intel, 14nm++ (Coffee Lake) will use 52% less power than the 14nm process (Skylake) or 26% more peformance, or any combination between. See page 4, top graph:Do you honestly expect 14nm++ to drop power usage by as much as 35% in the low 3Ghz range?
14nm started with Broadwell.So, a very rough estimate would be to take any 4-core Skylake
7700K at 4.4Ghz is (4 cores) * (4.4 GHz) * (1.00)*(Hyperthreading) = 21 - 22 depending on HT scaling in benchmark app.As for multi-threaded performance, lets assume the 8400 turbo is the same 3.1 GHz turbo as the 6400 (I suspect that it may even be a tad higher). Assume a 95% efficiency in going from 4 cores to 6 cores. Thus (6 cores) * (3.1 GHz) * (0.95) = 17.7. Compare that to the multi-thread performance of the 4 core 7700K at 4.4 GHz: (4 cores) * (4.4 GHz) * (1.00) = 17.6.
But how would MT turbo stay the same when TDP remains at 65W while core number increases?
Sure it did, turbo improves while base clocks go down. Makes perfect sense.It didn't stay the same, it improved.
So, a very rough estimate would be to take any 4-core Skylake, add 2 more cores (+ 50% power) and then use 14nm++ (- 50% power) and you are still right at about the same TDP. .
14nm started with Broadwell, but there are virtually no desktop Broadwell processors. You have the 5775C and 5675C, but that is it. Not much to compare it to. Desktop basically skipped Broadwell. HEDT is another story though.14nm started with Broadwell.
7700K at 4.4Ghz is (4 cores) * (4.4 GHz) * (1.00)*(Hyperthreading) = 21 - 22 depending on HT scaling in benchmark app.
Yes, but they aren't doing just pure 50% power drop. If you go for performance, it is only a 26% increase in performance for the same power. In other words, they can go a bit higher than Skylake for turbo.100 * 1.5 * 0.5 = 75
No matter how great it is, I won't pay 350$ for a CPU with just 16 pcie lanes. It's 2017...
Any indication that Intel has gone up to 20?
Daily Coffee Lake tease: What if an entry level Core i5 could match the MT performance of the popular Core i7-7700K?
No. It'll be 16, since it's designed to work with Z270 boards.
Hyperthreading does virtually nothing in multithreaded benchmarks. Take the 7700K (hyperthreading) and compare it to the 7600K (no hyperthreading). The 7700K also gets a nice 10% frequency boost. But what are the multithreaded benchmark differences?
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/01/intel-core-i7-7700k-kaby-lake-review/
Did you by any chance misread 6700K for 7600K in that Ars Technica review?Hyperthreading does virtually nothing in multithreaded benchmarks.
Doh, dyslexia kicked in. Fully my mistake. My post above has been redacted. But you cherry picked your graphs. Two can play at the cherry picking game.Did you by any chance misread 6700K for 7600K in that Ars Technica review?
Cherry picked?! Are you aware of what you just wrote a post ago?!But you cherry picked your graphs. Two can play at the cherry picking game.
Go ahead, it's just incredibly thin ice.Hyperthreading does virtually nothing in multithreaded benchmarks.
Hyperthreading, when it works, works quite well but for a limited time. Then after hours of heavy loads hyperthreading often gets worse and worse (not usually tested in benchmarks that have a very short period in which to rush out the review). In my workstation experiences (where my simulations may run for weeks at a time with the CPU pegged at 100% utilization), hyperthreading just peters out as the chip thermally throttles.Cherry picked?! Are you aware of what you just wrote a post ago?!
Go ahead, it's just incredibly thin ice.
Tell us more about how modern Intel CPUs thermally throttle after hours of intensive load.Hyperthreading, when it works, works quite well but for a limited time. Then after hours of heavy loads hyperthreading often gets worse and worse (not usually tested in benchmarks that have a very short period in which to rush out the review). In my workstation experiences (where my simulations may run for weeks at a time with the CPU pegged at 100% utilization), hyperthreading just peters out as the chip thermally throttles.
You have convinced me with your great argument that the base clocks are just there because Intel wanted to toy with us. (end sarcasm). Now go on with the start if this debate, tell us more about how the "i5 8400 will stay bellow 7700K". Then we'll come back when actual data is available.Tell us more about how modern Intel CPUs thermally throttle after hours of intensive load.
Sure it did, turbo improves while base clocks go down. Makes perfect sense.
You don't think the 65W tdp of the 7700 vs the 91W tdp of the 7600K is a factor? I think it is the factor causing the 7700 to be a little behind in that bench.Doh, dyslexia kicked in. Fully my mistake. My post above has been redacted. But you cherry picked your graphs. Two can play at the cherry picking game.
Handbrake 7700 (4.0 GHz turbo with hyperthreading) vs 7600K (4.0 GHz turbo without hyperthreading).
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph10969/85198.png
The 7600K is faster.
It is a moot point anyways. The 7400 was a bad buy compared to say the 7500 (11% more expensive but 13.3% faster base clocks). And we don't know the turbo speeds of Coffee Lake. The variance there alone will sway the final result.
Tell us more about how modern Intel CPUs thermally throttle after hours of intensive load.